Christians to Rally in Calif. to Defend 'Jesus' Prayers

jdblue82 »

Wed Aug 05, 2009 7:13 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

In Jesus' name? Try praying in Jesus' example. I don't recall Him making a big show of prayer. In fact, I hear He preferred the privacy of a certain grove, far removed from the busy and public Temple grounds.

He even told a story once, when asked how we should pray. As I recall, he wasn't particularly approving of the public displays of piety and righteousness. It was the repentant tax collector praying quietly in the corner that Jesus set as the example we ought to follow, not the self-righteous Pharisee who was proclaiming his piety for everyone to hear and see.

I wonder how Jesus feels regarding our public displays of self-righteous piety? I'm pretty sure He's not proud.

A House Divided?

jdblue82 »

Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:02 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

Biblical authority?

The bible demands that we stone adulterous women to death. It forbids wearing cotton-polyester blends. It calls eating shrimp and lobster an "abomination."

When you can demonstrate to the world that you follow all three commands to the letter, then we can start talking about who has biblical authority on their side.

In the meantime, trash-talking half of the Episcopal Church USA because they dared to accept homosexuals as just as deserving of full priesthood as anyone else... Well that's just downright Pharissaic.

Senate Panel Backs Sotomayor for Supreme Court

jdblue82 »

Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:13 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

What are you on?

President Obama still has high approval ratings, and no polling indicates that your implication to the contrary is even close to correct.

Judge Sotomayor also has the confidence of a large share of the public, despite a rather vicious smear campaign against her. The will of the people in this case is not the clear rejection of her that you are quite obviously hoping for.

There is a difference, apparently, between actual reality and the one you live in. You might want to get that looked at.

Mexican Doctor Warns of Universal Health Coverage Pitfalls

jdblue82 »

Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:02 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

"Millions of people, Contreras argues, have no insurance because they choose not to buy it when they have the option to."

That is his opinion, and as a doctor in a country with a universal healthcare program, he is hardly an expert on the reasons why Americans would elect not to purchase health insurance.

The exorbitant cost of health insurance is the number one reason that is given for those who can "afford" health care but choose not to purchase it.

Christian Wrestling Coach Sues School, Muslim Principal

jdblue82 »

Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:45 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 3

Flagged as inappropriate. show Making Islam into a punching bag is a seductive way to feel like you're better than someone else, but Jesus taught us that life isn't about putting people down. It is about lifting them up, even at your own expense. By the way, the AP story carries no mention of a student getting punched. (http://www.detnews.com/article/20090728/METRO/907280400/1026/LOCAL/Former-coach-sues-Dearborn-schools-over-religion) I wonder what other details were added or omitted... hide

Prop. 8 Opponents Mull 2010 Campaign

jdblue82 »

Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:23 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 6

Prop. 8 will be repealed or struck down as unconstitutional soon enough. The margin of victory was just over 4% with about 77% of the California electorate voting in a hotly contested presidential election.

According to any polling source out there, senior citizens are the group most likely to vote for bans on gay marriage. Their support hovers around 80%. They make up a disporportionate (to their population levels) chunk of both the electorate and of likely voters.

According to every respectable poll done on the issue, voters younger than 30 support equal rights for gays and lesbians (including the right to marry) by almost the same measure.

In plain English, all these statistics mean that the more time goes by, the less anti-equality voters will be around.

This issue was won when my generation (20-30 year-olds) started to come out in high school. More people in my generation know a gay or lesbian, and few senior citizens know any "out" gays or lesbians of their own age. Now that our society has toned down the open persecution of gays and lesbians, more of us feel safe enough to be honest about who we are.

Once we won that battle, the end result of full equality became inevitable. Prop. 8 will, in not so many more years, be repealed. In not more than a couple decades it will be an embarrassing footnote to the history of an otherwise remarkably progressive state. The only thing I regret is that Iowa beat us there.

Anti-Religion Group Sues to Block 'In God We Trust' Engraving

jdblue82 »

Sat Jul 18, 2009 5:20 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

It wasn't until 1956 that "In God We Trust" was adopted the US motto.

E Pluribus Unum was the original motto on the Seal of the United States in 1776. Why? Because it had 13 letters, which matched the number of rebel colonies. (Had Canada joined us in rebellion, I can only imagine what our history might look like.)

On the reverse of the Seal (of 1776) was the motto, "Annuit coeptis" which is officially translated as, "He (God) has favored our undertakings." This motto was inscribed over the giant Eye of Providence that is also commonly seen atop the pyramid on our currency.

The Eye of Providence was commonly viewed at that time as synonymous with ideas of God. However, many of the Founders held rather more universalist ideals about the nature of the Deity than America's Christians today.

As you can see, this subject is hardly clear-cut, but there are some clear indications in our historical record that our nation was made up (even then) of many different religious views. I think then that it is up to us to look to the present and make a determination as to what is most fair.

Should an atheist's tax dollars be used to support a religion he doesn't believe in? Well, that's a trick question actually, as most all religious organizations today are given tax breaks, irregardless of how little our atheist friend would like to give them. But those are private organizations, and there are good social reasons for giving them tax breaks.

The government is not, nor will it ever be, a private organization. As such it has a responsibility to serve and represent all of its people. Would the atheist truly be served and represented through a public declaration of support for religion inscribed into the CVC? Does that declaration do any social good that outweighs the misrepresentation of our country's religious diversity?

If this is a democracy, then the atheist's opinion matters just as much as the Christian's. And if that is the case, I think we ought to lend some credence to our atheist neighbors' concerns before we go and say, "Hah! Too bad! The Christians are a majority, so you're just going to have to deal with it!" That behavior does not bode well for the day when we are in the minority and our atheist neighbor still recalls his mistreatment at our hands.

Judge Tosses Prop. 8 Challenge, OKs Removal of Calif. from DOMA Suit

jdblue82 »

Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:41 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 5

Dear Gibbons Family,

You said, "It isn't good for countries to separate into many different kinds of people... a strong country is one where the majority are like-minded on moral values."

So how would you propose to solve this problem that you see? I'm perfectly happy with having Latino neighbors, deaf neighbors, Muslim neighbors, straight and gay neighbors. In fact, our Constitution allows them to hold whatever moral values they wish and speak about them whenever they wish.

What it doesn't allow for is a theocratic state of religious conformism, which is what you seem to be advocating.

The Illogic of Homosexual Unions

jdblue82 »

Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:00 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

You've asserted various "risk factors" for homosexuality exist, but cited no sources save Kinsey, whose work is five decades old and has been widely critiqued. In addition, you took it out of context and provided none of Kinsey's research-based rationale. That was part 1 of your argument.

You then proceeded to state that homosexuals suffer disproportionately high rates of various harms, this time without citing a single source for your statistics. That was part 2 of your argument.

Finally, you've unleashed a barrage of scriptural references to back up the conclusion you started with. This hardly seems to me to be an honest exegesis, considering you appear to have began it with a predestined conclusion.

I'm hardly eager for part 4, given the shaky footings upon which you've built your earlier contentions. I do hope that in your closure to this farce you at least look up beyond the edges of your Bible's pages and acknowledge there was a reason that we have been given brains capable of critical thought and scientific research. Perhaps you'll even cite a reference from the works of one of those aforementioned brains. I won't hold my breath.

Was U.S. Christian Slain in Muslim Mauritania 'Asking for It'?

jdblue82 »

Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:06 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Daniel, I missed the part where our President said Al Qaeda wasn't a terrorist group. Could you possibly provide a quote? I would hate to think you were bearing false witness and failing to pay the appropriate respect for earthly authority that we are commanded to give by Jesus...

I do want to also say that the killing of any person because of religious beliefs is a horrible thing. Chris Leggett's family and friends will be in my prayers tonight. And so will all people who suffer persecution because of their religion, or who engage in persecution for religious reasons. There's a lot of healing needed in this broken world.